How has the Anti-Defection Law Affected Karnataka Politics?

Must Read

India’s International ‘Retrospective Taxation’ Regime Vis-a-Vis PCA Rulings in Vodafone and Cairn in 2020

The imposition of retrospective taxation of foreign companies doing business in India has been at the helm of controversy...

What is the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016?

The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA”) is an Act of the Parliament. It seeks to protect...

Should the Exorbitant Amounts Charged for RT-PCR Tests be Refunded?

Introduction A plea has been filed in the Honourable Supreme Court of India seeking a refund of exorbitant amounts charged...

Should CCTV’s be Installed in the Police Station?

Introduction In a recent judgment, the bench led by Justice Nariman issued directions to both the state and Union Territory...

A Legal Analysis of the West Bengal Political Crisis on IPS Deputation

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has recently summoned three IPS officers of West Bengal (WB). The decision was...

Explained: Postal Ballot for NRIs

At the end of November 2020, Election Commission sent a proposal to the law ministry to amend the Representation...

Follow us

In its recent judgment, the Karnataka High Court held that AH Vishwanath, member of the Legislative Council (MLC) in Karnataka cannot be part of the Council of Ministers in Karnataka. This happened as he got disqualified for switching parties. Hence, under the anti-defection law, he cannot become a minister.


MLA Vishwanath was part of the JD(S) government in Karnataka which was aligned with the Indian National Congress (INC). This government was led by former Chief Minister H.D. Kumaraswamy. But in 2019, seventeen ministers had switched parties over to the Bhartiya Janata Party in 2019. Mr. Kumaraswamy was unable to prove the majority required to pass the majority in the State Legislature. Hence, he had to step down and give way for the current Yeddyurappa-led BJP government which is currently in power within the state of Karnataka. Following this, a number of the defectors had been inducted into the Vidhan Sabha which is the State Legislative Council. The state of Karnataka has a bicameral legislature. It consists of a State Legislative Assembly and a State Legislative Council.

Owing to the disqualification of the MLAs under the Anti Defection Act, the members have joined the State Legislative Council. Following this, recently Chief Minister B.S. Yeddyurappa had put forward his nominations for the Council of Ministers to the Governor. Mr. Vishwanath was included within this nomination into the Council of Ministers. Multiple pleas were filed within the Karnataka High Court. This was in regard to the nominations to the Council of Ministers. These included petitions contending the nomination of Mr. Vishwanath, Mr. R Shankar, and Mr. RTB Nagaraj.

Background of the Case

The nominations of the three members of the State Legislative Council as mentioned above contended in Court. This was based on Article 164 and Article 361B of the Constitution of India. Article 164 of the Constitution deals with the appointment of the ministers of a State. Article 361B deals with the disqualification of the members of a House to any further political posts. This occurs if their disqualification stands under the Tenth Schedule of the Indian Constitution. Paragraph 2 of the Tenth Schedule specifically deals with defection.

If a democratically elected member of a House falling under the Parliamentary system within India switches allegiance to another party, then that member will be disqualified from his current position within the House. The Tenth Schedule was introduced into the Constitution. The aim is to prevent political instability within the country. This is owing to shifting allegiances and the constant breakdown of governments. As a result, political instability and turmoil within the country became rampant.

Now, in this case, the defectors who had switched sides from the Kumaraswamy government to the Yeddyurappa were promptly disqualified. But the Supreme Court had allowed them to contest in the by-polls election. Mr. Vishwanath and Mr. Nagaraj had lost their seats in the election. Mr. Shankar did not participate in the elections. The petitions filed had challenged the nomination of all three candidates and were brought before the Court.

The Court held that Mr. Shankar and Mr. Nagaraj had won their seats in the State Legislative Council through an election. Thus, their nominations were valid as they did not come under conflict with Article 164 (1) (b) and Article 361 (B) of the Indian Constitution. But in the case of Mr. Vishwanath, the same did not apply. He was nominated to the State Legislative Council by Chief Minister Yeddyurappa. Hence, the Court held that his disqualification under Article 164 (1) (b) and Article 361 (B) still stands.

Impact on the Karnataka government

The decision comes at a tricky time for Chief Minister Yeddyurappa. The Chief Minister is under pressure from the party to fill his current 27-member cabinet ministry into a full-fledged 34-member cabinet. The requests by the Chief Minister to obtain a cabinet of his choice was a huge problem. The BJP had rejected multiple requests from the Chief Minister regarding his cabinet clearance. Furthermore, the pressure falls on Mr Yeddyurappa to keep the members of his party satisfied. The defectors who were instrumental in his rise to power within Karnataka, especially. The decision by the High Court will now have far-reaching effects on the political system in Karnataka. It will be harder for defectors to rise owing to the lack of incentives that can be offered up to those willing to defect. The Yeddyurappa led NDA government has secured 147 seats within the lower House. It becomes the responsibility of the Chief Minister to make sure that his government stands the test of time.

The rejection of Mr Vishwanath’s nomination has set up a precedent. This may change the political landscape of the state in the foreseeable future. The decision to shift allegiances becomes a harder one to make owing to the interpretation of the Tenth Schedule by the High Court. The state, which is reeling from a power shift that took place quite recently is now faced with a huge question pertaining to its future. The decision has limited the power of the Chief Minister in granting positions of power to his supporters. This brings forth the question of party politics in general. The game behind party politics and the question of the nature of power arising along with it is now in free-fall.


The anti-defection provisions introduced within the Constitution serve as an adequate check on unfair political practices. Such practices can prove to be detrimental to the political future of a country. In this case, the use of the Tenth Schedule in relation to the gaining of political titles has been duly interpreted by the High Court. Thus, Mr Vishwanath’s nomination has been revoked. Only time will tell how this decision will influence politics within the State and also the political future of the country at large. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Allahabad High Court Expresses Dissatisfaction on Counsels Seeking Unnecessary Adjournments

The petition had been filed by Smt. Radha prayed to issue directions to Judicial Magistrate-I in Faizabad. The petition sought a speedy decision in...

[Delhi Riots] When the IT Ministry Calls Us, We Will Go Says Harish Salve To Delhi High Court

The Vice President and Managing Director of Facebook, Ajit Mohan told the Supreme Court that when the representatives of the company are called by the Information Technology Ministry they will come and record their statements.

Allahabad High Court Seeks Response on Compensation of Cutting Trees From National Highways Authority of India (Nhai) 

The Order had come in the form of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a bunch of law students in Uttar Pradesh. The...

Doctrine of Proportionality Must Adhere to Reasonableness Principal Test: Madras High Court

Young Men's Christian Association built a commercial complex and leased it without having due permission. The District Collector & Tahsildar issued a show-cause notice...

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Release of ‘The White Tiger’ on the OTT Platform Netflix

A plea requesting a stay on the release of the film ‘The White Tiger’ by the American producer, John Hart Jr. alleging copyright violation was rejected by the Delhi High Court on Thursday.

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being imposed.  Brief facts of the case This...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.  Brief facts of the...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Bhuj in the case of...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first consignment, on 10.06.2020 and the,...

Delhi High Court Seeks Response From Centre, RBI in PIL to Regulate Online Lending Platforms

A notice had been issued by the Delhi HC in a PIL that sought regulation of online lending platforms (Dharanidhar Karimojji vs UOI). Brief Facts: The...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -